The 21-day cumulative irritation assay in man: a half-century summary and re-evaluation

Evaluation of the Safety and Tolerability of Lumify Eye Illuminations Cosmetic Products

Purpose

Cosmetic products applied to the periocular area can cause skin sensitivity reactions, and manufacturers routinely test the safety and tolerability of products in development. This research was sponsored by Bausch + Lomb to evaluate three Lumify Eye Illuminations products: a lash and brow serum, a hydra-gel eye cream, and a micellar water eye makeup remover.

Methods

A cumulative irritation test (CIT) study and a repeated insult patch test (RIPT) study enrolled adult males or females with no known sensitivities to cosmetic products. Three clinical safety studies enrolled adult females with self-reported characteristics targeted by each product, which was applied in a manner consistent with expected use for 8 or 12 weeks.

Results

In CIT (n=34) and RIPT (n=201) studies, faint/minimal erythema reactions were observed in 0% to 2.9% of participants; there were no moderate or severe reactions. No safety signals were observed in participants who completed clinical safety studies for lash and brow serum (n=66 enrolled, n=55 completed [83%]), eye cream (n=61 enrolled, n=52 completed [85%]), or eye makeup remover (n=80 enrolled, n=68 completed [85%]). No clinically relevant changes in visual acuity or ophthalmologic slit-lamp examination findings were noted. No participants reported ocular sensations of burning/stinging, foreign-body sensation, or soreness. At the final clinical safety study assessment, mild cutaneous erythema (as graded by the investigator) was reported for one participant (eye cream study); no other prespecified signs of cutaneous irritation (eg, edema, dryness) were observed. A treatment-related adverse event that led to study discontinuation was experienced by one participant in the eye makeup remover study (bilateral periorbital swelling).

Conclusion

Findings from rigorously conducted irritation testing and clinical safety studies indicated that these products were safe and well tolerated. Increased availability of data regarding ocular and cutaneous safety of cosmetic products can inform consumer decision-making and eye care provider recommendations.

Overcoming False-Negative Patch Tests: A Systematic Literature Review

Exogenous allergens, found in cosmetic products, jewelry items, antiseptics and antibacterials, plants, and solvents, can cause clinical allergic contact Dermatitis (ACD). To help identify and discern which allergen is causing ACD, clinicians use patch tests, but they can yield false-negative results at times. Examining potential reasoning for false negatives is particularly helpful when a patient's history and physical examination strongly suggest ACD, and the patch test is negative. A strong history and physical presentation suggestive of ACD warrants additional patch testing or other methods to verify a false-negative patch test result. We conducted a literature review to compile various reasonings and solutions for false-negative patch tests in suspected ACD patients. Utilizing EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholars, 49 articles were included by using search terms such as "False negative patch test" or "False-negative patch test" and "allergic contact Dermatitis," or "ACD." Common factors that led to false-negative patch test results include low allergen concentration, inadequate percutaneous penetration, technique error, immunosuppressive therapy, and ultraviolet exposure. Potential solutions include using different vehicles, concentration, increasing reading time, repeating the patch test, intradermal testing, and repeat open application testing. If a false-negative patch test is suspected, then intradermal testing can be administered to ensure the specificity of the patch test result. Considering the main contributing factors and solutions to false-negative patch tests, clinicians can accurately diagnose ACD and administer proper treatment plans.